• Disqualifying a Prospect

    07/22/2014 2:04 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)

    This month’s post comes to us from APRA-C member Lisa Ukuku, Director of Prospect Research, The Citadel Foundation.

    I recently saw a post in Prospect L (the online forum for conversation and collaboration about fundraising research) asking researchers to explain their process for disqualifying a prospect. One reply was that the prospect was discussed at a prospect management meeting, and if it was the consensus of the group, the prospect is coded “disqualified.” This process appears to be the best practice for many academic institutions: Allow the gift officers to cite any known information about the prospect, and make a group decision on whether or not the prospect should be cultivated at all. If the prospect is deemed to be someone who is not inclined to make a major gift, he or she is coded as such in the donor database. The prospect may also be coded “no contact” or “no solicitation” based on what information is known about the person.

    … But a funny thing happened in our Research office. My co-worker and I were working on profiles that we call “bio briefs” for an upcoming event where top prospects and donors are invited to play golf with our college president. In this process, we only take a brief look at the prospect, their estimated wealth, and how much they have contributed to the college. My colleague noticed that one attendee had a note on his record requesting no solicitation. By protocol, the record should have been coded “no solicitation” and excluded from the invitation mailer. But the wonder of it all was that he accepted – even though he stated that he did not want to receive any mail from the college!

    So, if his name had come up in a prospect management meeting, because of the note on his record, he would be someone who we would disqualify and code “NMGP” (“not a major gift prospect”).

    Therefore, we have to consider what placing a prospect in this category means. When considering the guidelines for our database, the coding of “NMGP” would result in the following:

                The prospect would not be contacted by a gift officer.

                The prospect would be excluded from future wealth screenings.

                The prospect would be excluded from annual and major gift solicitations.

    Is this what we want…forever? I think as researchers, we should examine the amount of time a prospect is placed in a “disqualified,” “no solicitation,” or “NMGP” category. The life situations of prospects could change, and they may be inclined to have a relationship with an organization now while they were not before.

    So the process of disqualifying a prospect should never be a permanent status. Just because at one time a prospect did not want to be contacted doesn’t mean that he may not later want to attend an event hosted by the college. It may just be a question of finding the right tool to engage the prospect: We have to find the right program of interest for the prospect. Where does he or she want to make an impact at the institution? Or, in the case of what happened at my organization, send an invitation to someone after he requested not to receive anything. And who knows: A prospect may be more inclined to make a gift to an organization after attending an event where he is made to feel “qualified.”

  • Keep the Statistics Descriptive at First

    06/20/2014 4:08 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)

    This month's post comes to us from APRA-C member Patrick O'Toole, Associate Director of Advancement Services for Prospect Management at UNC-Asheville.

    Data analytics has become an accepted portion of the prospect research profession. Many prospect development operations have conducted a variety of analyses trying to discern answers to the mysteries within our databases. When I speak with colleagues becoming involved with data analytics, I often hear the question, “Where do I begin?” Invariably, my answer is the same: Keep it simple.

    When we first undertake data analytics, our heads are filled with great ideas. We want to create an omniscient predictive model that will point the way – exactly – to those individuals who will make a seven-figure major gift in two months’ time. And then we face the reality of making sense of our [often] messy data.

    None of us would run a marathon for our first competitive race. It should be the same with data analytics. To help us learn the boundaries and abilities of our data – and to gain confidence in our analytic abilities – I encourage beginning data analysts to design and build a “data digest.”

    What on earth is a data digest? you might ask. I gave it that name, because that’s what a former employer called a similar publication. You can call it a data book or a data compendiumundefinedwhatever makes you feel comfortable and confident. Essentially, this book is a collection of descriptive statistics that puts boundaries around your organization’s performance. 

    Few (if any) of these statistical snapshots should be complex. Instead, you gather in one place, and in a consistent manner, statistics around the number of donors you have each year, the median revenue you receive from each donor, how many new donors you had each year....You get the idea. Your data digest can morph quickly from a mere collection of numbers to a valuable planning tool.

    A thoughtfully constructed data digest is great for discerning year-to-year trends. When we close the books at the end of each fiscal year, how much thought is given to comparisons with last year? With the year before? To longer-term trends? By doing nothing more than tracking year-to-year performance, you can enable your organization to better understand broader, troubling trends. For example: Your median revenue per donor has been decreasing, and your total number of donors is decreasing slowly as well, but you’re bringing in more money. This trend may point out that an increasing share of your fundraising is coming from an ever-smaller circle of major donors, demonstrating to your organization’s leadership that you must reach out to new potential major donors.

    A data digest can also be used for benchmarking. If you build your data digest to mirror commercially available products, you can gain broader insight to peer performance. Perhaps the best known benchmarking resource is Blackbaud’s “donorCentrics” product. You can find simplified versions of this package online. With a bit of query creativity, you can mimic these products. By doing so, you can start to see how your organization’s fundraising performance stacks up against similar institutions.

    Perhaps the greatest value I have found with data digests is providing a reality check during annual planning season. It is very easy for an enthusiastic – and misinformed – manager to say, “We’re going to receive gifts from 10,000 alumni this year!” If you can prove through the data digest that the previous all-time high was 5,000 alumni, and the ten-year average is 3,500 alumni, you can help keep annual goals within the realm of reality and possibility. I am NOT saying these will be easy conversations. I am saying that part of our function is to provide a rational voice in the room. If you have a solid data digest showing years-long performance and trends, it should help you to better influence outcomes.

    I update my organization’s data digest annually after the fiscal year closes. Every year, I make improvements and add nuances and expansions. But every year, I maintain the tradition of building the data digest. I cannot tell you the number of times I have referred back to this set of simple, descriptive statistics. My data digest has proven to be invaluable, and I encourage all beginning data analysts to hone their skills by developing and maintaining one.

  • Tips on Researching Foundations

    05/26/2014 10:25 AM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    This month’s post comes to us from APRA-C member Nancy Hillsman, the Assistant Director of Research and Stewardship for Foundation Relations at Duke University.

    Foundations need a little research love, too. Since that’s what our office does, I wanted to pass on an overview for those who may not deal with foundations on a regular basis but may bump into them once in a while. In researching that topic, I came across a very good article on the Arthritis Foundation website. They said it so well that I offer their wisdom:

     “How to Research Foundations”

    • Research is key to your success. But even when you've done the research, you must be able to read between the lines.
    • Always compare a foundation’s stated purposes, mission and guidelines to the actual grants distributed and grant-making patterns.
    • Even guidelines that seem explicit need to be read as if you are an investigator with the attitude of "this is what they say they are interested in funding, but is this really what they do?" Ask yourself:
      • What is the foundation’s overall mission and purpose?
      • What does the foundation say it does? What are its guidelines for developing an application?
      • Does the mission match the guidelines?
      • How are the grants actually made?
      • How do what it says it does and funds compare to what it actually does and what it actually funds?
      • Can the discrepancies between what the foundation says it does and what it actually does and/or its mission be explained? Review other available information, such as backgrounds on its board members to develop your best guesses about the reasons behind these exceptions or discrepancies.
      • How can I use this information to develop specific strategies for approaching each foundation?
    • Review foundation publications and materials with an eye to where the decision-making authority is within the foundation. A few foundations clearly spell out their review procedures, but most do not. Building lasting relationships with the “right” people is key to being funded.
    • If it’s not spelled out, ask how the decision-making process works when you speak with a foundation program officer or director. Use that information so you’ll know with whom you need to formulate a lasting relationship.
    • Always think of alternative ways to approach a foundation if you are turned down, but also realize that some foundations may not let you reapply for a period of time after you’ve been turned down. Nevertheless, keep them on your mailing list and find other strategies to remain visible to them.
    • Too many grant seekers send applications to foundations that have no interest in supporting their causes. Research is critical to avoid this mistake.
    • The more time you spend analyzing prospective funders and understanding each one you have initially targeted, the better will be your chances of developing strategies for successfully approaching them for grants. Each piece of information you collect about a given prospect helps you form a picture of that particular prospect.
    • After you’ve found the basic information, you then need to put the pieces of the puzzle together in a way that makes them meaningful for you and for the (foundation) so that they can become the basis for specific fund-raising tactics for that source, and for the other sources being explored. Again, strategy and relationship-building are key ingredients to successful fund raising through grants.

    How to Research Foundations (2014). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.arthritis.org/toolkit/supporting-programs/tip-sheets-2-11/research-foundations/

  • Book Review on Score!

    05/20/2014 3:01 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)

    Score!

    By Kevin MacDonell and Peter Wylie

    Why did I read Score! cover to cover?  First, because it was invariably readable. The writing is clear, clever, and conversational.  Truly, I found myself reading it on my day off even.  Score! defines its goal upfront in the subtitle - Data-driven Success for Your Advancement Team. Success – that one word should make constantly striving development team members take notice. The book makes its point well: non-profits are missing reams of opportunity if their alum or donor statistics are not captured, mined, analyzed, modeled and confidently presented with the specific intent of informing the work of raising money more effectively.  Finally, I kept reading it because I believe this book arrived when our institutions it most. Institutional data is a core asset, not to be neglected or squandered, but used to great advantage.  Some know that already, but need this nudge to ask others to take notice.

    Data analytics to this pair of authors, and now even more so to myself, is ripe ground for reaping the healthy rods of information grain.  MacDonell and Wylie ask - and make the case – for the non-profit prospect researcher to farm this rich field and advocate for data’s thoughtful place at the strategy-making table.  They repeatedly speak of its worth to both sides of the room, the decision-makers and the data research analysts.  Strong logic to use data’s logic.

    These two authors bring multiple decades of experience in statistics (Wylie has a PhD in the subject) and in the field of non-profit development.  They’ve successfully navigated the years of growth in our data swamped age and have taken the helm here to show us in all the small to large shops of concerned non-profit workers how to smartly rudder through. They provide essential instruction in both hard and soft skills needed to let the data speak. Their years of interactions with clients as they consulted on this subject allow them to write about best and worst instances of data care. Chapters of case studies for work in annual fund, major giving, and planned giving provide practicums in the application of data modeling for those fields.  After these, one feels like having steered the channel oneself and adequately ready for a beer with Captains MacDonell and Wylie.

    The writers swap authorship of sections and sometimes within a section.  This technique allows for multiple stories for personal insight and the depth of a second angle, and thankfully, this never seems padding for equality’s sake but for the richness. It’s another indication of the smart presentation of what could be a mind-numbing subject if inexpertly crafted.  I was continuously grateful that the writing spoke with the easy tone of a fine professor to a colleague.  I entirely appreciate the stories data tell and try to tell them myself, but MacDonell and Wylie relate their advocacy with a knowing grin that pulled me in to their enjoyment.  I only hope to do as well.

    Score! is an instruction manual for us in the data rich research departments and for those in strategic planning positions.  The soundest message I took is that we researchers can’t be retiring statistic geeks, though the inclinations may be there, but confident, walking instruction manuals ourselves.  The use of data analytics is crucial and skills to view and model can be self-taught. Score! will remain a smart read for non-profit development staffers for a long while.  It’s not one for the reference shelf, but one that must be shared.

    Book review by

    Susan Bridgers, Director of CFR Prospect Research, University Development, UNC-Chapel Hill

  • Using Your Human Resources

    05/14/2014 2:17 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)

    How many of us prospect researchers believe we’ve finished the profile and that we’ve researched and found all the information “out there” to have a full view of this prospect – then find out there is a big piece of the puzzle missing: their mother is sick, and the prospect is paying the hospice bills, or they’re in debt, they’re paying alimony, etc.?

    We realize that there is only so much information available on the World Wide Web or in wealth screening software. Is the profile ever really complete without using your human resources to add their perspective? Let me clarify: When I mention human resources, I do not mean the personnel department at your institution, I mean your people resources: your staff, your major gift officers, your board members, your executive director, your volunteer leadership – the folks that actually sit down with the prospect during cultivation visits.
     
    I presented at a workshop on prospect research last week, and a question was raised: How do you engage your people resources to create a more complete profile? This question created a great brainstorming session, and several suggestions bubbled to the surface. The below suggestions on how to better communicate came from not only prospect researchers but development personnel as well.

    1. Software Journal Notes: Use them! Ask staff and MGOs to update the software system with pertinent information that they learn on their site visits.
    2. Contact Reports: Ideally, this information will be uploaded in the software, but if not, ask MGOs to provide complete, detailed information. Review their contact report and make sure it includes all the information you’re looking for.
    3. Bi-weekly Calls or Meetings: Have a set call every other week with the MGOs to discuss upcoming visits and past visit outcomes.
    4. Stress Importance:  Continue to communicate to development personnel the importance of their feedback and knowledge. They may be surprised that what they know or don’t know will help guide your research.

    At the end of the workshop, it was agreed that a full profile of a prospect cannot be completed without the people resources. Their insider knowledge and understanding of the prospect is vital to forming a complete profile. Be sure to use them!

    This post was written by Margaret T. Johnson, Director of Client Services at Capital Development Services.

  • Why We Do What We Do

    04/23/2014 2:52 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    According to APRA, prospect researchers direct their energy towards identifying new donor prospects, maintaining and programming databases, researching individuals, corporations, and foundations, and, as we know, more. We have been described as resourceful, diligent, and adaptable.

    By the nature of the job, we have to expect the unexpected and adjust accordingly. We keep abreast of new technology and techniques to improve our efficacy. We attend professional training to "stay on our toes." We collaborate with colleagues to keep ideas flowing. We are always learning and improving.

    Being in healthcare, there is a sense of purpose for what I do. I am helping to identify someone who will support a research lab where scientists are working on curing a debilitating disease. I can find that one person hiding in our database capable of making a transformative gift that will inspire others to give. The new building on campus funded by philanthropy will be an invaluable resource as we train our medical and nursing students to better serve the community.

    On days when our work may seem tedious, we have to remember we are working for the greater good. Dig deep and know that the time you invest now may one day mean someone could see another birthday, a child's pain could be eradicated, and a scholarship recipient could go on to be the leader of the free world.

    I want to say thank you for the hours you invest and the sacrifices you make. I appreciate it. The service you provide is vital. Keep up the good work!
    This post was written by Erica Lamptey, Development Analyst at Duke Medicine.

  • Get AMPED!

    04/23/2014 2:51 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    Get AMPED!
    (Academic and Motivational Professional Education and Development)

    But I don’t have time to attend a seminar or go to a conference!
    Our department is cutting our budget……….. AGAIN!
    Is it really that important?

    Above are the excuses that often accompany invitations to conferences, seminars and other professional development opportunities that come your way every month.
    Instead, the following questions are what ought to be asked of yourself and your supervisor:

    How can I improve my skills and raise the bar in my job if I don’t add new skills to my ability to help my department?
    Would our budget allow for necessary upgrades to technology? If so, am I less important than the technology we use?
    Am I working harder instead of working smarter?

    If you are a goal setter, what are your goals and how do you intend to get there? If you’re not one of THOSE people, how do you go about learning any new skill? Sometimes it’s online training, sometimes it’s taking a class, right? As a kid or a parent, we’ve all said or heard the phrase “practice, practice, practice.” But practice what? We had to learn it first, and that meant getting the education we needed to understand what it was we needed to practice and how. Why is it that when we become “adults,” we forget that very fundamental process in learning and think we know it all when we know that no one does know it all?

    In 2012, Deloitte, a leading consulting company, did the unthinkable in a downturned economy. They invested in professional development tools for their employees despite the economic challenges in order to come out on top in their field when the economy turned around. They saw it as necessary as upgrading their security and technology.

    You were hired because you are a valuable asset to your organization. To remain a valuable asset, you need to consistently take stock in what you have to offer and create a check list of skills to add to your cadre of abilities. What is it that you need to learn to take yourself to the next level? What is the next level? It’s okay if you don’t know. Find out through professional networks and colleagues. That’s where networking pays off in spades!

    How do you go about getting AMPED? This is where no size fits all. Don’t start with time and cost, because you will inevitably sell yourself short and wind up with less than desired achievements. Rather, start with the skill set you wish to develop and seek out the closest match to your needs. Being aware of the fact that not all budgets are created equal, find other resources for paying for more expensive AMPED opportunities. Remember the adage “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Now, more than ever, there are scholarships and work reimbursements from HR and various other sources. Check them out! Many professional development chapters offer scholarships and assistance to those organizations that are struggling the most. ALWAYS ask about discounts! It never hurts to find out if there are ways to use discounts to pay for things.

    When you think about the opportunities that are offered to you, keep in mind these questions: How can I personally connect to other attendees and those who are educating me? Will there be time to network and build my community of colleagues outside my office? How can I use the skills I learn to assist my organization?

    Building your community of colleagues is essential in keeping yourself on the road to continual improvement. It’s like having a swimming buddy. The deeper you get into building your network, the more you’re surrounded by professionals and leaders in your field and the more skilled you will become at navigating your future.

    Once you’ve developed your plan of action and where to invest your dollars to guide your future, step out and get…………………… AMPED!

    Writer’s personal preference for getting AMPED:
    • APRA International Conference
    • APRA-Carolinas and APRA-VA chapter meetings that involve networking time as well as education
    • One-on-one collegial meetings that happen ad-hoc

    This post was written by Tracey Martin, APRA-Carolinas board member and Prospect & Research Coordinator for Duke University's The Fuqua School of Business.

  • Walking a Mile in the Donor's Shoes

    04/23/2014 2:50 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    I took a course on public administration ethics last semester as part of my MPA (Master of Public Administration) program at NC State. One of our assignments was to critique the code of ethics for an organization, and I chose to critique APRA’s code.

    Since starting in the prospect research/fundraising field three years ago, I’ve been fascinated by the ethics associated with fundraising in general and prospect research specifically. Obviously we are bound by practicality; there is some information we just can’t reach. But we also have more “wishy-washy” ethical dilemmas: Just because we have access to a piece of information, should we report it? The explosion of social media further complicates this question; for example if someone has his or her Facebook page public, can we use information from that page in our reports?

    For those who haven’t looked at it recently, APRA’s Statement of Ethics can be found at http://www.aprahome.org/p/cm/ld/fid=110. It is pretty simple when compared to some of the other codes I looked at in my class; the code of ethics for the International City/County Management Association, for example, has 12 tenets and a five-page document expanding on them with guidelines. I personally like the APRA Code’s simplicity; you can, after all, micro-manage someone’s behavior, and I’ve always felt that being too specific when setting ethical standards can increase the likelihood of leaving something out. Better, I think, to provide broader guidelines and help professionals understand that ethical behavior often includes making judgment calls that can’t be predicted.

    This notion is especially relevant in fundraising and prospect research. Even the most specific statement in APRA’s code (“Members…shall only record data that is appropriate to the fundraising process”) is arguably too broad; after all, what data is appropriate, and what data isn’t?

    In my paper, I argued that this lack of specificity is necessary in prospect research. Part of the “art and science” of what we do is that our research process does not look the same for each prospect. The data we record in our reports just prior to an ask may not be appropriate to include in our reports at the identification stage of the fundraising cycle. These types of decisions are what make us data analysts rather than data reporters. APRA cannot dictate what type of data is appropriate at each stage of the fundraising cycle and for each prospect because each prospect is different.

    Interestingly, since I turned in my paper, APRA has posted a Social Media Ethics Statement on its website. This statement is more specific than its broader ethics statement, perhaps because social media is still relatively new, and everyone – not just prospect researchers – are still trying to figure out its implications. The statement provides some specific behaviors to avoid. For example, APRA members “should not ‘friend’ or be ‘friended’ or enter into personal relations with prospects or donors in the conduct of their work.” It is ethical, therefore, to use LinkedIn to find information about prospects, but it would be unethical to “connect” to a prospect for the sole purpose of seeing information that is private.

    These new frontiers are not only exciting in their implications for what information we find and how we use it to raise funds for our institutions; they are also interesting from an ethical perspective. What types of information are appropriate to use for fundraising purposes, and what standards have we adopted in our use of that information? As social media becomes more and more of a presence in our personal and professional lives, what impact does that presence have on us, personally and professionally? One helpful guideline I like to use is: In a grand alternate universe where I am a wealthy philanthropist, if a prospect research analyst at my alma mater were doing X, would I find it intrusive? Or would I find it to be a normal part of fundraising?

    It’s a cliché for a reason: Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes can be very helpful. And in a profession that is all about raising funds to promote the public good, having that kind of empathy is a good idea anyway.

    This post was written by Taryn Oesch, Prospect Research Analyst at North Carolina State University.

  • Are You My Donor?

    04/23/2014 2:49 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    Ok, I know I am telling my age, but when I was young, I remember my elementary school teacher reading (what I thought was the dumbest book ever) Are You My Mother, to the class. It was about a baby bird that hatched while his mother was away. He had fallen from his nest, so he sets out to look for his mother and asks everyone he meetsundefinedincluding a dog, a cow, and a planeundefined"Are you my mother?"  The contrasting pictures in the book of the most unlikely animals standing beside the tiny yellow bird were the most bizarre thing ever to me. I couldn’t understand why the little bird would think that the other animal could be his mother when it looked so different than he did.

    Now years later, working in fundraising, I find that I am the little bird asking almost the same question when presented with an unknown nameundefined“Are you my donor?” Some names seem to be of the most unlikely individuals. I stare at the piece of paper, or email and wonder why I am being given this name; they did not graduate from this school, they did not grow up in this community, they do not work in this community, they do not have relatives who graduated from this school, they do not give to us, they do not look like our donors.

    However, I follow due diligence and find a formal name and residential address, find out their last employer and position title, run a wealth screening, confirm any philanthropic giving to other organizations, create a profile, search for news articles, and, of course, search for the ever illusive photo. Seconds, minutes, hours, and sometimes days later, I have my finished product. A nice, neat, detailed profile on the prospect. I email the finished product to my colleague with my professional opinion noted about this individual and even suggest what level of giving this person may be able to produce.

    In the process of this endeavor, my passion for research comes out. I find that I am obsessed with finding evidence that this person is indeed a prospect. I want the answer to the question to be “YES, I am your donor!” I just can’t have wasted time and energy on someone who is not a prospect, right?

    I wait seconds, minutes, hours, days to hear back from my colleague. I stop him in the hallway, “Have you contacted the prospect yet?”  Nothing…I get nothing except that I’ll let you know.  He does not seem to see the urgency in this situation or even remember who I am talking about. Soon I am involved in other research requests, more traditional prospect research, and I forget about my suspect.

    Then one day out of the blue, the gift officer bounces into my office and says, “Hey I got in touch with that prospect. I’ve scheduled a visit for next week!” Well, I am as happy as when I delivered my first child! My plight is over and I can rest easy. My life is good!

    But wait a minute? Does this mean I have gotten the answer I wanted to my question?  No, but what I’ve finally come to realize is that every recommendation of a prospect should be considered a potential donor. I had to stop thinking as I did when I was younger. Just because the two pictures look different doesn’t mean that they are. The prospect may not look like my other donors; their characteristics may not “mirror” our top donors, but so what?! Isn’t that part of prospect research… to find out?

    I challenge you to take a deeper look at some of the people whom we sometimes leave at the bottom of the drawer. Tier 3 prospects, non-donors, non-graduates, one-time donors, students who attended the evening or graduate programs, individuals not currently in the database, oh and yes, parents. You may find that someone you considered a “tiny little bird” may actually return to the nest as one of your top donors.

    This post was written by Lisa Ukuku, Director of Prospect Research at The Citadel Foundation. 

  • The Art, Science, and Magic of Prospect Research

    04/23/2014 2:46 PM | Apra Carolinas (Administrator)
    I am a sole prospect researcher. My colleagues are continually amazed that I am able to discern the value of a prospect after studying a selection of data points. Having practiced our profession for nearly a decade, I have learned that there are equal measures of art and science in making these appraisals. I have also come to learn that there is … in the eyes of my colleagues … a bit of magic. By embracing the “magical-ness” of our work, we can bring a bit of fun to what we do.

    Georges Seurat was a French painter who is best known for using a technique known as pointillism. If you study one of his paintings, such as A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, you will see the picture is composed of thousands of shaded dots. When viewed up close, the picture makes little sense. From a distance, however, this neo-impressionist masterpiece delights. It is the same with prospect research. In our work, we discover small subtly shaded dots about a prospect. Our work becomes artful by seeing these points as a whole. We draw conclusions from each point and are able to paint a coherent picture for our gift officers.

    A good example of this is a line I often hear is, “His house is worth half a million dollars!” Taken in exclusion, that data point is intriguing: The prospect was able to purchase a $500,000 home. As prospect researchers, we need to look more closely. Check the mortgage records: What was the debt-to-value ratio? What is the prospect’s estimated annual income? Did the prospect recently sell a home elsewhere and use the proceeds to purchase this one? In short, we need to connect the dot of a home’s assessed value with several other dots to determine a prospect’s liquidity. We have all heard the phrase “house rich and cash poor.” As prospect researchers, we must prove or disprove this notion with every prospect. Are they living within their means? Do they have the capacity to make a gift to our organization?

    When evaluating prospects, our gift officers must also share their intended goal. Determining annual giving capacity is different than determining major gift capacity. Annual giving is sometimes referred to as “checkbook giving.” It is the type of philanthropy that is governed by how much is comfortably available in a prospect’s checking account. This usually is driven by a prospect’s income and discretionary spending. Drawing on resources like The Chronicle of Philanthropy and documentation from the Internal Revenue Service, prospect researchers are able to determine estimates of these values. I have cautioned gift officers that an intriguing prospect might own a fine home and two nice cars, but their income is only middle class, they have three children in their teens, and their discretionary income is minuscule. We create magic when we draw all of these data elements together and suggest that the gift officer pursue an annual gift that is respectfully within the prospect’s ability to contribute. Better it is to build relationships for the future than to alienate a prospect with a too-big, too-fast ask amount.

    Prospect researchers can create even bigger magic when few … if any … data points are to be found. For several years I was the prospect researcher for a major medical school. I learned that physicians are masters of disguise when it comes to personal data. I learned later that attorneys share this trait. Often, their personal assets are held in trust. These professionals do this to ensure their assets are not in jeopardy if they ever face a lawsuit. As prospect researchers, we often cannot find or confirm anything with physicians and attorneys, but we are able to offer learned interpretations of what we do not see. Granted, we cannot deliver an estimate of wealth that is accurate to two decimal places, but we can offer hints, clues, and ideas. We are trained professionals, and we are used to seeing clarity inside these murky situations.

    It often comes down to trusting your intuitions. I cannot count the number of times I have worked through all of the usual resources on a prospect and thought, “Something more is there.” It is feeling beneath the surfaceundefineda sensation that we are somehow not seeing as full a picture as we could. Once again, that is where the artful magic of our profession comes into play. There is no one right way of doing what we do. Each of us draws on personal ability and experience to create our answers. Yes, we have standardized resources for reference, but the way in which each of use approaches and uses these resources is unique and … dare I say … magical. Each of us in prospect research is more than the sum of the information in our databases. We are the ether that draws all of this information together and makes sense of it.

    As prospect researchers, we have unusual abilities. We are inquisitive. We are diligent. We are resourceful. We are able to size up prospects we have never met from a variety of data sources that mean little to our colleagues. I would like to say that more often than not we are closer to right than wrong in our assessments. To our co-workers, this all appears to be magical. Embrace that perception. We are magical. We have a unique set of skills, and we bring great value to our organizations. Prospect researchers are the forward-looking guides that help to steer their organizations toward goals.

    So when one of you gift officers marvels at a research profile you have prepared and comments that you must be magic, just smile. 


    This article was written by Patrick O’Toole, UNC Asheville.

  Apra Carolinas. All rights reserved.

For any questions or corrections, please reach out to ApraCarolinas@gmail.com
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software